Scaleybark Station Area Projects

[JacksonH]

4 hours ago, lancer22 said:

I get the need for affordable housing, don't get me wrong. My point is that Brookhill is hell. Not to sound incendiary, but it is third world. You want to continue your endless loop of poverty and hopelessness? Live in Brookhill.

Solutions are never going to be perfect. Maybe you have to move o/s Meck County. Maybe it's tough on you personally. I get that, but there are other items you need to weigh against the cost of current tenants relocating. In the case of Brookhill, the scales are clearly tilted towards tearing it down.

Who knows, maybe the county can subsidize housing there. Seems like it could be the poster child for mixed-income housing in Charlotte.

 

"Maybe you have to move o/s Meck County."  This is a problem.  It's not only a problem in Charlotte, it's a problem in cities across the country.  It's wonderful that urban centers are being revitalized.  But that's also creating this problem.  And it's a problem that's going to have long-term, multi-generational impacts.  I live in a quickly gentrifying neighborhood in San Diego.  There's an apartment building across the street from my house.  A year ago it was full of working class families.  Then the landlord kicked them all out and spent (I've heard) somewhere between $20K and $40K per unit on upgrades.  Now it's a gorgeous apartment building where you can live in a 650 square foot 1 BR/1 BA for $2,000 a month.  Obviously, those families that used to live there for half that price won't be back.  And they won't be living anywhere near this neighborhood anymore because now it's out of reach for them.  They're now being forced out into far-flung suburbs, which means longer commutes to their jobs in the city and, thus, less time with their children -- time they might have otherwise been spending helping their kids do their homework, or fixing them a decent breakfast and dinner.  So now their kids are going to suffer, their education is going to suffer.  And they are going to grow up lacking, starting life from behind.

As someone who used to own and rent a condo that grew in value as the neighborhood improved and allowed me to sell at a nice profit, I appreciate what this gentrification has done for me personally and how it's helped my nest egg.  And I greatly appreciate how much safer the neighborhood where I live feels (same neighborhood where I used to own that condo).  I bought my condo and my house in this neighborhood because I knew it was gentrifying and I knew buying here would be  a great investment.  And it has been.  So I see this from both sides.  A friend of mine, who is involved in local politics, has had an idea of reutilizing public property, such as libraries that have shuttered, and building high-rise affordable public housing in their place.  There will be NIMBYs that will oppose that idea, but I see few other solutions short of forcing rent control laws on property owners, which would be a disincentive for people to invest.  We need those lower-income workers to stay in our cities so that local businesses can continue to thrive.  But they need protection.  They need to be able to have affordable housing that enables them and their families the opportunity to thrive.  At the same time, owners need to have their investments protected.

[j-man]

4 minutes ago, JacksonH said:

"Maybe you have to move o/s Meck County."  This is a problem.  It's not only a problem in Charlotte, it's a problem in cities across the country.  It's wonderful that urban centers are being revitalized.  But that's also creating this problem.  And it's a problem that's going to have long-term, multi-generational impacts.  I live in a quickly gentrifying neighborhood in San Diego.  There's an apartment building across the street from my house.  A year ago it was full of working class families.  Then the landlord kicked them all out and spent (I've heard) somewhere between $20K and $40K per unit on upgrades.  Now it's a gorgeous apartment building where you can live in a 650 square foot 1 BR/1 BA for $2,000 a month.  Obviously, those families that used to live there for half that price won't be back.  And they won't be living anywhere near this neighborhood anymore because now it's out of reach for them.  They're now being forced out into far-flung suburbs, which means longer commutes to their jobs in the city and, thus, less time with their children -- time they might have otherwise been spending helping their kids do their homework, or fixing them a decent breakfast and dinner.  So now their kids are going to suffer, their education is going to suffer.  And they are going to grow up lacking, starting life from behind.

As someone who used to own and rent a condo that grew in value as the neighborhood improved and allowed me to sell at a nice profit, I appreciate what this gentrification has done for me personally and how it's helped my nest egg.  And I greatly appreciate how much safer the neighborhood where I live feels (same neighborhood where I used to own that condo).  I bought my condo and my house in this neighborhood because I knew it was gentrifying and I knew buying here would be  a great investment.  And it has been.  So I see this from both sides.  A friend of mine, who is involved in local politics, has had an idea of reutilizing public property, such as libraries that have shuttered, and building high-rise affordable public housing in their place.  There will be NIMBYs that will oppose that idea, but I see few other solutions short of forcing rent control laws on property owners, which would be a disincentive for people to invest.  We need those lower-income workers to stay in our cities so that local businesses can continue to thrive.  But they need protection.  They need to be able to have affordable housing that enables them and their families the opportunity to thrive.  At the same time, owners need to have their investments protected.

Couldn't agree more. It was basically what I said. i love urban development and revitalization but the bigger picture is that people will be hurting for the benefit of people who already are well off. Investors, and people who will be using, or living in these newly gentrified areas. smh it is so sad. And the most cultural cities in the United States are having this problem. It sucks coming to a city expecting to see and feel that sense of place and culture and it is nowhere to be found. 

[JacksonH]

19 minutes ago, j-man said:

Couldn't agree more. It was basically what I said. i love urban development and revitalization but the bigger picture is that people will be hurting for the benefit of people who already are well off. Investors, and people who will be using, or living in these newly gentrified areas. smh it is so sad. And the most cultural cities in the United States are having this problem. It sucks coming to a city expecting to see and feel that sense of place and culture and it is nowhere to be found. 

I really think it's happening in every growing metro.  Before San Diego I lived in the DC area.  The same thing is happening there.  I see neighborhoods in DC that used to be full of working families that are now high end.  There is very little in the District that's affordable.  They built the arena where the Washington Capitols and Washington Wizards play and totally turned around that area of the city that's now full of high-income millennials.  Then they went into the lowest income part of the city and built a new major league baseball stadium.  Now that areas gentrifying.  People with money are moving in.  People without money are moving away and possibly families are being ripped apart.  Maybe DC had a plan for these displaced lower-income families when they did this, but I don't know.  I hope so.

Edited January 29, 2019 by JacksonH

[Dandy Chiggens]

 

32 minutes ago, JacksonH said:

I really think it's happening in every growing metro.  Before San Diego I lived in the DC area.  The same thing is happening there.  I see neighborhoods in DC that used to be full of working families that are now high end.  There is very little in the District that's affordable.  They built the arena where the Washington Capitols and Washington Wizards play and totally turned around that area of the city that's now full of high-income millennials.  Then they went into the lowest income part of the city and built a new major league baseball stadium.  Now that areas gentrifying.  People with money are moving in.  People without money are moving away and possibly families are being ripped apart.  Maybe DC had a plan for these displaced lower-income families when they did this, but I don't know.  I hope so.

I think you're being overly-dramatic, but then again ive never been one to virtue signal.   You do realize the reality of life for everyone (not just "poor" families) is that we can only live where we can afford the rent/mortgage?  Nobody has a right to live wherever they want.  There are thousands of middle class people who sit in 77 traffic everyday for hours and miss out on family time as well.   Should everyone who commutes from Mooresville and Huntersville be given housing in Uptown? 

 

Also its funny you bring up South East DC, I used to work at the Navy Yard...... that place was by far the most dangerous place in the entire DC-VA-MD area...... yea, such a shame it got revitalized...... 

[videtur quam contuor]

Regarding subsidized housing (tozmervo) I made a post in History of Charlotte. Not on topic here.

[KJHburg]

changing the subject back to the LoSo development.  KJ reporting on the LoSo from the SoFlo

http://rebusinessonline.com/beacon-partners-to-build-15-acre-mixed-use-project-in-charlottes-south-end-neighborhood/

affordable housing is a problem nationwide.  Rents have outstripped wage increases. Charlotte is starting to finally do something about it.  I think we have affordable housing thread in the Coffee House.  

Do you want to know what little ole Savannah is doing for homeless veterans?  Building  a tiny home development.  and there is NO reason this could not be done in Charlotte as part of the solution. 

https://taskandpurpose.com/homeless-veterans-tiny-homes

 

[JRNYP2C]

22 hours ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

haha. Thats got a new home at Queen Park Social. Which I've still somehow never been to

It was "meh" for me.  Unless you want to go bowling, the food and atmosphere are no different than anywhere else in Charlotte.  To me, it probably hurts them that they are surrounded by OMB, Sugar Creek, Yancy et. al. that have a more interesting draw.

[lancer22]

2 hours ago, JacksonH said:

"Maybe you have to move o/s Meck County."  This is a problem.  It's not only a problem in Charlotte, it's a problem in cities across the country.  It's wonderful that urban centers are being revitalized.  But that's also creating this problem.  And it's a problem that's going to have long-term, multi-generational impacts.  I live in a quickly gentrifying neighborhood in San Diego.  There's an apartment building across the street from my house.  A year ago it was full of working class families.  Then the landlord kicked them all out and spent (I've heard) somewhere between $20K and $40K per unit on upgrades.  Now it's a gorgeous apartment building where you can live in a 650 square foot 1 BR/1 BA for $2,000 a month.  Obviously, those families that used to live there for half that price won't be back.  And they won't be living anywhere near this neighborhood anymore because now it's out of reach for them.  They're now being forced out into far-flung suburbs, which means longer commutes to their jobs in the city and, thus, less time with their children -- time they might have otherwise been spending helping their kids do their homework, or fixing them a decent breakfast and dinner.  So now their kids are going to suffer, their education is going to suffer.  And they are going to grow up lacking, starting life from behind.

As someone who used to own and rent a condo that grew in value as the neighborhood improved and allowed me to sell at a nice profit, I appreciate what this gentrification has done for me personally and how it's helped my nest egg.  And I greatly appreciate how much safer the neighborhood where I live feels (same neighborhood where I used to own that condo).  I bought my condo and my house in this neighborhood because I knew it was gentrifying and I knew buying here would be  a great investment.  And it has been.  So I see this from both sides.  A friend of mine, who is involved in local politics, has had an idea of reutilizing public property, such as libraries that have shuttered, and building high-rise affordable public housing in their place.  There will be NIMBYs that will oppose that idea, but I see few other solutions short of forcing rent control laws on property owners, which would be a disincentive for people to invest.  We need those lower-income workers to stay in our cities so that local businesses can continue to thrive.  But they need protection.  They need to be able to have affordable housing that enables them and their families the opportunity to thrive.  At the same time, owners need to have their investments protected.

A couple of responses - I get that forcing renters to move is an issue. I don't love it, but it is absolutely something that is on the table when we are talking about housing that should have been condemned 10+ years ago. On the margin, yes some kids will spend less time with their parents, but the commute time of parents isn't even in the top 5 reasons why kids from poor urban areas suffer. I would be 100% on-board with the counties building affordable housing. The issue is, and we don't want to admit it, but local governments around the country (including CLT) are largely incompetent when it comes to affordable housing. The only way you make it work (in my opinion) is by charging higher fees on market rate development and hiring people with development experience into your local government to run your subsidized housing programs.

[HighRiseHillbilly]

13 hours ago, J-Rob said:

Wow.  I have a hard time understanding anti-gentrification outcry at times.  I get the underlying premise, but those Brookhill homes are hardly livable.  I understand the need for cheap rent, but if the rents aren't even high enough to support basic repairs and a safe standard of living... well, something has to give.  Tough situation to navigate.

 

Sub par to someone with money is acceptable to someone without. It's not ideal, but it works. Are they supposed to be completely homeless until the city gets its act together and comes up with something pretty? A leaky roof is better than no roof.

[j-man]

15 hours ago, JacksonH said:

I really think it's happening in every growing metro.  Before San Diego I lived in the DC area.  The same thing is happening there.  I see neighborhoods in DC that used to be full of working families that are now high end.  There is very little in the District that's affordable.  They built the arena where the Washington Capitols and Washington Wizards play and totally turned around that area of the city that's now full of high-income millennials.  Then they went into the lowest income part of the city and built a new major league baseball stadium.  Now that areas gentrifying.  People with money are moving in.  People without money are moving away and possibly families are being ripped apart.  Maybe DC had a plan for these displaced lower-income families when they did this, but I don't know.  I hope so.

I know for sure people are aware of what they are doing. It's not just about beautifying an area, it's about kicking out (raising property taxes, and rent prices "legally") who they want so they can live in or either profit from the places that the working class called home at one point. It sucks because historic neighborhoods are being washed away for either high end appeal or turning into a cookie cutter capitols. 

9 hours ago, HighRiseHillbilly said:

Sub par to someone with money is acceptable to someone without. It's not ideal, but it works. Are they supposed to be completely homeless until the city gets its act together and comes up with something pretty? A leaky roof is better than no roof.

Exactly. Like are yall that insensitive? People are grateful to have what they have, and if the city will help them live in better environments, that is one thing, but to just kick you out, and demolish your homes and say "oh well, find someplace else to stay"  is just ridiculous. And then all these cities put on this front as if they are so great to live in and are so good to the people of their communities....yeah ok. 

[J-Rob]

10 hours ago, HighRiseHillbilly said:

It's not ideal, but it works. Are they supposed to be completely homeless until the city gets its act together and comes up with something pretty? A leaky roof is better than no roof.

Perhaps I miscommunicated with my first comment, but if you read my other comments you will see that what I was actually communicating is that they deserve a better standard of living, that is still affordable.  You are suggesting that an affordable, yet leaky roof, is better than no roof.  I am saying they deserve an affordable non-leaky roof.  That isn't going to happen at Brookhill.

In an attempt to try to steer this thread back on track, a few other mentioned they like they style of the new LOSO station (Rail Yard and Refinery's Baby), but are ready for something else.  I agree to a certain extent, but I will say if the First Ward was full of 6-10 floor brick and glass buildings, with an activated street level, I would be ecstatic.  We can only dream... Until then, it will be interesting to see if local companies fill-up LOSO Station, or if perhaps larger companies put smaller, creative type teams down the blue line.

[kermit]

3 hours ago, J-Rob said:

 Until then, it will be interesting to see if local companies fill-up LOSO Station, or if perhaps larger companies put smaller, creative type teams down the blue line.

My money is on local, I would be surprised to see an out-of-market company take a risk on what is essentially a brand new office sub market.

Edited January 30, 2019 by kermit

[jtmonk]

Putting this here as a friendly reminder of what this thread is actually about.  I believe I read that Beacon plans to start construction on the first phase this summer, guess they plan to go spec?

[Bikeguy]

3 minutes ago, jtmonk said:

Putting this here as a friendly reminder of what this thread is actually about.  I believe I read that Beacon plans to start construction on the first phase this summer, guess they plan to go spec?

..and another thing, why can't developers see the benefits of planting some real trees once in a while.   

[atlrvr]

I'm fine with this style being repeated multiple times.  Most cities have vast districts of buildings all of very similar design, that reflects the contemporary aesthetic preference when bthose districts were built.  2 projects a couple miles apart, seems nowhere near the saturations point, especially given the superior design (IMO) to most new developments here.  I'd be happy with 20 projects of this "style".

I do agree that the large plaza has a sterile 70's institutional feel.

[videtur quam contuor]

34 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

..and another thing, why can't developers see the benefits of planting some real trees once in a while.   

Look at that plaza and imagine from mid May to September the baking heat radiating and the emptiness and dolor engendered.

More trees please.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jtmonk said:

Putting this here as a friendly reminder of what this thread is actually about.  I believe I read that Beacon plans to start construction on the first phase this summer, guess they plan to go spec?

I don't think it'll be spec. I'm thinking Al Borland and Tim Taylor (do not guess what this means in response to this post).  I also don't think this will start until Railyard sells. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Guest

[SgtCampsalot]

I don't think so, RDF.

[lancer22]

23 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

I don't think it'll be spec. I'm thinking Al Borland and Tim Taylor (do not guess what this means in response to this post).  I also don't think this will start until Railyard sells. 

I've said that if HW goes here I will eat my shoe. Same thing applies for Al & Tim.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, lancer22 said:

I've said that if HW goes here I will eat my shoe. Same thing applies for Al & Tim.

 

Interesting. I'll see if I can find you a nice dipping sauce for your Nikes.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Guest

[cltbwimob]

RDF, is Binford Tools HQ is coming to Charlotte?

Edited January 30, 2019 by cltbwimob

[lancer22]

18 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Interesting. I'll see if I can find you a nice dipping sauce for your Nikes.

I've always said leather is like beef jerky

[JacksonH]

22 hours ago, Dandy Chiggens said:

 

I think you're being overly-dramatic, but then again ive never been one to virtue signal.   You do realize the reality of life for everyone (not just "poor" families) is that we can only live where we can afford the rent/mortgage?  Nobody has a right to live wherever they want.  There are thousands of middle class people who sit in 77 traffic everyday for hours and miss out on family time as well.   Should everyone who commutes from Mooresville and Huntersville be given housing in Uptown? 

 

Also its funny you bring up South East DC, I used to work at the Navy Yard...... that place was by far the most dangerous place in the entire DC-VA-MD area...... yea, such a shame it got revitalized...... 

Wow, were you wearing blinders when you were reading my comments?  I went through a whole discussion about how I have personally benefited from neighborhood gentrification, but also pointed out that there are victims and that solutions are needed to help the victims without hurting the investors.  But to pretend there are no victims is to just choose to be blind.  You are actually equating middle class people who choose to buy their very own home in Mooresville and Huntersville, where likely each adult drives their own nice car, with lower-income people who are forced from their homes and community to live far away, who may not even own a car?  My brother sister-in-law are among those middle class folks up in that area.  They had the luxury of picking a neighborhood up there where they can send their kids to decent schools and where there are community amenities they can enjoy and a safe environment for their kids.  My brother has a 45-minute commute from his job in south Charlotte; his wife is about 15 minutes away from her job in Davidson.  They are probably typical of people who live up that way.   But what happens to that poor family that is forced out of the neighborhood where their family has lived for generations, and can't afford Mooresville or Huntersville, has to go somewhere like Gastonia and maybe doesn't have a reliable vehicle and relies on underfunded and limited public transportation?  Or if they do own a vehicle, it's a crappy one and has to be shared between two adults who are working in two different far-flung places, making for a very long commuting time?

4 hours ago, tarhoosier said:

Look at that plaza and imagine from mid May to September the baking heat radiating and the emptiness and dolor engendered.

More trees please.

Given that this will (I think) be right by the station, I think having a plaza is appropriate and ideal.  But future developments I would hope would be compact and facing the street.  This plaza could become the centerpiece of an eventual urban center.  I think it would be a mistake to build an urban area with no consideration for one central common area.  Now if other developments come along also with these big plazas, then I would have a problem with it.

Edited January 30, 2019 by JacksonH

[JacksonH]

4 hours ago, atlrvr said:

I'm fine with this style being repeated multiple times.  Most cities have vast districts of buildings all of very similar design, that reflects the contemporary aesthetic preference when bthose districts were built.  2 projects a couple miles apart, seems nowhere near the saturations point, especially given the superior design (IMO) to most new developments here.  I'd be happy with 20 projects of this "style".

I do agree that the large plaza has a sterile 70's institutional feel.

I agree with you about the style being repeated.  If it's the same style repeated within a district then that sort of lends to the identity of that district and I'm fine with that.  As for your comment about "the large plaza has a sterile 70's institutional feel," see my comment immediately above.

[southslider]

By design, South Blvd was moved in this location. The City helped with site assembly. Charlotte's first modern rail transit opened. Then the Great Recession happened. Nice to see a long-planned TOD area finally nearing implementation. 

Edited January 31, 2019 by southslider